| Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] general UML 2.5 questions |
|
Hi If you want to mangle elements together you are free to create whatever variety of spaghetti satisfies you. XMI and tooling have policies for resolving href's so your comments about knowing how to find things leave me totally confused. I see no significant difference for users between UML 2.4 and 2.5. Regards Ed Willink On 14/10/2014 11:37, Robert Lemmen
wrote:
hi ed, thanks for the reply! You do primarily support my concerns/questions however: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:21AM +0100, Ed Willink wrote:UML 2.0 had the vision that it would be helpful if UML was built from reuseable parts. Hence the many levels and general difficulty with finding anything definitive in the specifications. No one was aware of any actual reuse and so the UML simplification that led to UML 2.5 abandoned this heavy use of Package Merge in favor of single points of definition.understood, but that means that a UML tool that reads a XMI file must "know" somehow in which package to go looking for a given element from teh XMI. In other words, a lot of knowledge about UML must be built into the tool that manages the model, rather than being incoded into the model itself. That is very unfortunate from a meta-modelling perspective, if you for example were to create another model, you need to update your tools to read the matching XMI into an abstract representation, in the 2.4 system a XMI reader could populate the abstract model with very little knowledge about the model being read. Of course no one is stopping the createor of a toolset to use the same mechanism that is used in 2.4 to create a package that contains all used classes, solving this problem. But I find it very surprising and was assuming that I am missing something important, e.g. that the same can be achieved with profiles or so (though I don't see how).A UML model does not and cannot refer to a diagram. UML 2.5 introduces UMLDI allowing a diagram to refer to a model. |